[BlargMcLarg]

They proved their point already. You took much longer and much fancier wording to say what could be said in a few lines, without losing any meaning. Verbosity for the sake of verbosity.

This is what I mean. Using long names compounds not only on itself. It compounds onto the entire codebase. Unless you blackbox the code, make it 100% bug free and it doesn't require changes for future features, that code will be read. Reading takes a lot of time, but worse: it takes far longer for someone to process a much larger cognitive load. This is especially dangerous in huge codebases that need to be changed on a regular basis, usually retorted by "it takes time to get in the swing of things".

We have better things to do in life. Respect the person who will read the code. Be concise.

[Geminidog]

In all my arguments I'm saying that this logic you present doesn't apply to English. Nothing was proven because my points weren't addressed.

You're not respecting my time with your grammatically correct comment above. You can shorten your comment by mangling the grammar and preserving the meaning.

>We have better things to do in life. Respect the person who will read the code. Be concise

See that sentence it's wasting my precious time you can get rid of a lot of unnecessary info and preserve meaning.

>We have better thing do. Respect reader. Be concise.

There. same point but more concise but now you sound as if you have brain damage. My point is we use programming languages and english to communicate a point, but clearly in english nobody takes any effort to respect anyone's time. It's full of wordy unnecessary stuff and the entire population of english speakers actually prefers reading this very verbose english then reading obscure code.

I am saying because of this contradiction all your logic flies out the door.

Bring the level of verbosity of code to the level of verbosity in english. We don't complain about english, we actually prefer it over code. So clearly nobody is actually caring about 'saving' those precious seconds of reading long grammatically correct sentences. Who cares if someone uses it as a function name.

[BlargMcLarg]

You spent so many words, yet you still side-step the main argument, and then further ridicule my argument by taking it out of context.

These are different contexts. I do not wish to read a 300 page manual when it can be described in 2 pages, similarly to not wanting to scan 10 pages worth of code that has hundreds of thousands of code I may be expected to have to look at. I require both enough energy and insight to solve the problem after reading.

This is a discussion forum. We write differently here. Information sharing is not our prime objective, unlike writing code.

>I am saying because of this contradiction all your logic flies out the door.

Contradiction solved. Now, will you answer or continue to side-step?

[Geminidog]

> You spent so many words, yet you still side-step the main argument, and then further ridicule my argument by taking it out of context.

Nothing is being ridiculed here nor taken out of context. This is simply a misunderstanding by you.

As for the side stepping... It's a matter of perspective. From my perspective you are the one side stepping because you didn't even bring up the contradiction. So I'll regurgitate your words right back you were side stepping the contradiction thank you for finally addressing the issue.

>These are different contexts. I do not wish to read a 300 page manual when it can be described in 2 pages, similarly to not wanting to scan 10 pages worth of code that has hundreds of thousands of code I may be expected to have to look at. I require both enough energy and insight to solve the problem after reading.

Let's frame the context here so that we both agree. The context is to communicate a concept to a reader WITHOUT being verbose. Code and English both live within this context because you use code to communicate to other programmers and you're using English to communicate to me Right Now.

We can also agree that BOTH code and english can be over verbose.

Context Established.

>This is a discussion forum. We write differently here. Information sharing is not our prime objective, unlike writing code.

Information sharing is the prime objective Of all written and verbal forms of communication. You need to understand this. There is zero point of writing anything if it is not communicating a point. Any form of communication is a form of information sharing, and english being a medium of communication which makes it a medium for information sharing.

Have you ever heard of "Documentation"? Documentation communicates the EXACT same information that code does but better because it's in English and more verbose. That's why Documentation often exists along side code. One can derive code from documentation and documentation from code.

>Contradiction solved. Now, will you answer or continue to side-step?

Contradiction not solved. You still need to address it. English and programming occupy the same context with English actually being used within programming. Think about it, Programming is basically a shitty version of english that's only used because a computer understands it. Nobody would be programming otherwise. If you can program a computer efficiently using English I guarantee you traditional programming languages will be thrown out the door within a day, nobody will use it anymore.

So the context that programming occupies is two fold. It occupies the same context as English to communicate with other people, and at the same time it also has to communicate with a computer. That is the prime difference. So why do we have reduce naming to some poetry contest when you can write a fully grammatically correct and clear sentence as function name and call it a day? We don't do it in English why can't we stop doing it in programming? The contradiction is still there and still invalidates all your points.

There is no logical reason why we shouldn't bring programming up the same level of clarity and verbosity as English. The only thing stopping us are the technical limitations of the computer, so we should get as close as possible with what we currently have.